In his presentation, Chief Winstrom admitted the “overcapture of data” is a concern.
The data would be owned by GRPD, Winstrom explains, and would only be released in compliance with the law. Some called drones inherently “invasive.”Ĭommissioner Kelsey Perdue of the Third Ward asked about data ownership. Many residents expressed distrust towards GRPD and cited recent events such as the shooting death of Patrick Lyoya and the pending civil rights cases against the department. Let’s not forget that GRPD is working at a massive deficit of trust, a racially informed deficit.” “I understand why cops want drones for reasons that could be honorable, but also still unlock plenty of abuses. That ship has kind of sailed,” said one Grand Rapids resident. “It is fair to say that if you think drones impact privacy, you’re not realistic about modern life. Most opposed the plan because of surveillance concerns. READ: Grand Rapids Police Department pitches plan for dronesĪt Tuesday’s hearing, numerous people approached the mic, very few in support of the plan. However, Winstrom also addressed concerns and criticisms about police drones in Grand Rapids, mostly surrounding issues of privacy. And you should be expected to receive that here in the second biggest city in the state of Michigan.” “Whether you live in the Third Ward or the Second Ward,” he said, “you deserve adequate police service. He also mentioned other nearby departments that already utilize drones, including Kalamazoo, Kentwood, Wyoming, Walker and even the Michigan State University Police. Chief Winstrom described the drone program as a way to maximize GRPD’s service in the city, saying the drones could make up for staff limitations, help with traffic crash investigations, assist with search-and-rescue missions and provide surveillance for special events.
0 kommentar(er)
